RAYMOND BRADFORD V. C. OGBUEHI, No. 16-15899 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15899 D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01918-AWIDLB v. C. OGBUEHI and NIETAS, MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Raymond Alford Bradford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to Bradford’s ulcerative colitis and celiac disease. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the district court’s interpretation and application of the “three-strikes” rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand. The district court abused its discretion in denying Bradford leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Bradford plausibly alleged that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-57 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)); see also Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2015) (court should liberally construe prisoner’s “facial allegations” and determine if the complaint “makes a plausible allegation” of imminent danger). We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 16-15899

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.